An estimated 1,700 to 4,700 birds are killed each year in the 50-square-mile Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Of those fatalities, between 880 and 1,300 are federally protected raptors such as burrowing owls, red-tailed hawks and golden eagles, according to a study released last year by the California Energy Commission.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050701-1112-ca-deadlywindpower.html

The Endangered Species Act will keep wind power from becoming viable.

My understanding is that the Altamont Wind Area is located in a migratory bird path, resulting in an unusually high amount of bird deaths. Wind farm developers have since taken note.

Trust me, wind farms are moving ahead in certain parts of the country. There are plans for two major wind farms near Rawlins, WY that, if approved, would make WY the third largest producer of wind energy in the nation.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/07/12/news/wyoming/21-windfarm.txt

And this is independent of T. Boone Pickens' plan for new wind farms, and he's got the $$ and cache to back up what he says.

Wind power is here to stay, when done correctly.

I'm certain that covering the oceans with windmills and high voltage transmission lines will have no impact on marine ecology. We should simultaneously seed the oceans with iron to grow algae and cover the water with white powder to reflect sunlight.

Then our grandchildren can marvel at how incredibly stupid we were.

"The Endangered Species Act will keep wind power from becoming viable."

Not true, PH.

The classification of a raptor as federally protected is a different thing altogether from a species listed as threatened, or endangered, and its corresponding habitat preserved under the ESA.

Moreover, part of the site assessment for any wind project involves an environmental impact statement that considers endangered species specifically. Projects are being built even with the ESA in place. There are plenty of viable locations that don't trigger ESA concerns.

Great idea, but the question that comes to mind is that if terrestial birds are killed by windmills, and therefore a reason to not use that sort of power generating system, are ocean going birds less "valuable" to the planet?

And, what happens when a cargo ship loaded with lead tainted toys from China rams into one of the "farms"? Does electric prices go through the roof? Do "VOLT" speculators drive up the cost every time a cargo ship leaves port?

Great conceptual solution to growing energy demands but practically not feasible.

WE need some genius to figure out how to make fusion generators a reality. And then, someone needs to discover dilithium crystals to really make a lot of power.

Let's provide some important emphasis:

"According to NASA, wind energy has the POTENTIAL to provide 10 to 15 % of the world's future energy."

Problem is, "wind farms" seldom produce anything remotely near their "potential" because the wind doesn't consistently blow, or consistently blow hard enough, or blows TOO HARD (which results either in the removal of the turbines from service due to intentional shut down or from damage to the equipment) to produce the "potential" power output.

Another fallacy is how much energy can be "provided" by windmills, since once you factor in the energy required to:

1. Mine the raw materials used in the construction of the wind turbines (and battries used for temporary storage/backup);

2. Manufacture the turbines and related equipment;

3. Transport the equipment to the site where it is to be used;

4. Erect the equipment on-site;

5. Maintain the equipment on-site (including transportation of crews and supplies to the site, likley to be fairly remote from heavily populated areas);

6. Dismantle and dispose of equipment that has reached the end of its useful life

The energy consumed is very likely in excess of the energy the wind turbines actually produce over their lifespan.

Wind turbines produce power only if the wind is blowing hard enough, but not too hard, which does not occur frequently enough and consistently enough to be meaningful. Their "potential" output is the snake oil used to sell them as a great "source" of energy, but they are not a good source of energy at all, since they don't provide the necessary consistency or reliability to be depended on, nor do they provide anything near their "capacity" most of the time when they are actually producing anything at all.

Not to mention them being big "Quisanarts" to the poor birds...

GSN,

Polar bears populations are not threatened or declining, yet that didn't stop EPA from protecting them. Hudson Bay ice is nearly normal this year.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html

Funny how the same people getting hysterical over a few square miles of the ANWR and a few ppm of CO2 - are willing to trash the entire rest of the planet.

I recall an article by George Monbiot (yes, him) in the UK Guardian a couple of years back whilst a public enquiry was underway into a large windfarm stretching for many kilometres across hills in the English Lake District.

He pointed out that the savings of CO2 from operating the windfarm for a year would be more than wiped out by the daily aircraft flight from Heathrow to Houston (IIRC).

The windfarm was rejected, not necessarily because of Monbiot's article. LOL

It is interesting that here in the US no, zero, offshore windmill farms have been built whereas say in Denmark they've had many in operation for years. Now, why is this? Perhaps because NIMBYs like Ted Kennedy (D) MA and John Kerry (D) MA don't want their views and favorite sailing areas despoiled. Data from Denmark's real world experience put to lie the faux enviroconcerns of fishermen and birders.

That being said, even though Cape Cod has fairly steady winds there are many times there's no wind so you need to add the cost of the 'standby' generating system for those calm days. We need nuclear powerplants.

AGW, you seem to have misunderstood the article. It says that wind power can provide 10% to 15% of the world's needed energy. Yet your critique goes on to imply that because it cannot provide all the needed power all the time, wind should be disregarded as an energy source.

Further, the numbered list you have included in your critique assumes that no other type of power generation facility requires the expenditures of energy during its construction and prior to its operation. Obviously, this isn't the case. The wheels really fall off this criticism when you consider that coal plants require ongoing mining to supply them with coal, whereas wind turbine facilities obviously do not.

Wind is good. However the wind does not blow 24/7/365 and it is not as dense as water. Water is like 650 times more dense than the air is. Placing a turbine in the Gulfstream would be far more effective than wind since the water there flows 24/7/365 to the North. Placing "Underwater Suspension Tunnels" in the Gulfstream for electrical generating purposes far exceeds the beifits of wind power and they can also regulate the power of a Cat5 landfalling hurricane to that of weak Cat2 prior to landfall when needed .

Are there any wind farms currently operating that have been in existence long enough to assess the pros and cons? I mean have these farms learned some facts they did not anticipate long-term, and if so what are they?

I would like to say that very wealthy people, like Pickens can choose to believe in solutions even if not viable. What I am saying is that smart, wealthy people do not necessarily make any better decisions even though they made good ones previously. Very successful people with loads of money and resources open up restaurants every single day that fail within the first year. It seems logically impossible since it would seem bucks = the ability to get great talent and the best of everything but in reality high profile people are prone to being duped just like everybody else.

I have no problem harnessing wind power, but as has been pointed out above, we need to look at the big picture and figure out if the pros outweigh the cons. The idea of knocking off birds does not appeal to me. I think humans are smarter than that and can figure out more ingenious ways to use nature's wind.

I also confess I detest the word "potential" since in my world, which is the equine world, potential usually winds up equally zero. Sad but true but it sure doesn't stop sellers from exaggerating the "potential" of any animal.

This is stupid.

We have enough discovered coal reserves and deposits to last over 250 years. That does not include what is not discovered.
That alone, gives us 250 years to dick around with NEW technology.
All this hyper hysterical mess.

Just focus on making coal cleaner and cheaper. Add a few nuclear power plants...

....and poof

No power emergency.

It's really funny to watch our Deniers argue against any type of solution -- their desperation to preserve the status quo is patently obvious.

In Patrick Henry's demented world, windmills on the ocean would damage the marine ecosystem; yet, somehow big oil rigs over the ocean and offshore drilling is somehow picturesque and great for marine wildlife.

Isn't it ironic how Deniers talk up how environmentally safe drilling over the ocean is, yet suddenly become concerned about birds and environmental damage when discussing windmills? Ha! I guess they can shift positions on the environment, depending upon whether it protects their interests or not. In the end, that's all it's about for them -- protecting their interests.

Many folks who own land in West Texas think it's a pretty good gig if you can get it. If you drive west from Dallas out past Abilene through the Sweetwater area, you'll see hundreds of 'em. Since there wasn't much of a view to begin with, the appearance is not an issue. Don't know about the birds.

As I remember from talking to folks at a wedding in Snyder last summer, the monthly power royalty paid to the landowner averages about $1,500 per month per windmill. There are hundreds more being put up every year so I'm guessing the economics are working OK.

The downside is that the more a region's power grid depends on wind, the worse the problem when the wind quits for a day or two. This happened in West Texas earlier this year. The grid engineers had quite a time trying to shift power from conventional power plants to that area.

Off Topic (a bit)

CO2 record over the last 100 years.

OOPs!!!
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

Seriously, wind power has potential and may have an important role in providing for our future energy needs.

But we should not dive in headfirst. Let's adapt wind power when the technology is ready. We can't just make it happen by mandate. We need a few pilot projects to keep development going but plans like T. Boone Pickens' proposals have a big price tag and an uncertain pay-off.

PH:
Between 100 million and one billion birds are killed every year in the United States when they crash into glass windows. And even one billion deaths might be a conservative estimate, says ornithologist Daniel Klem Jr. of Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pa

Patrick - Let's not be so negative 24/7.
Like T. Boone says 700 billion a year to foreign nations for oil -- the biggest transfer of wealth in history. Hosed at the gas pump daily!

So you would be all for underwater energy turbines? I'd start investing in them before that evil Al Gore and his capitalist friends make all the money.
A lot of energy out there. Let's make it American energy.

AGW is not Science --

The concept you are discussing is ERoEI = Energy returned on energy invested. You are absolutely wrong about wind power. The ERoEI of wind turbines is between 19 and 25.

A value of 1 would mean that one unit of energy inputed would yield one unit of energy. Corn ethanol is just over one. Nuclear is about 6 and coal is about 8.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI)_for_wind_energy

It seems that deniers are negative about almost everything that could free us from foreign oil. And cut CO2. And save us money.

AGWins,
very good point!...

with peak oil on us, the cost of producing the materials and transporting them is going to be huge. Its even having an effect on producing oil itself!

Will there be a return on the investment...probably not. If it is left too late it will be almost as expensive as nuclear to implement and maintain!

we are running out of options for an alternative to oil and the later we leave the solution required the more of a nightmare we find ourselves in...

Windmills, some questions that perhaps someone will have some answers. A year or so ago I was working near a wind farm being developed and got into a conversation with an older guy whom had said that his brother lives out west, I think Colorado, and his brother told him that out there alot of the wind farms only last 7-10 years until they become non usable and basically delapadate and become an eyesore. Just wondered if anyone else knows anything on the life span of windmills. I know here where I am at, windmill companies have been turned down numerous times on the construction of a wind farm due to locations to the north and south of here with people complaining of a humming noise they put off, blinking lights, bird kills, etc. I don't quite live close enough to know but is this true? As far as bird kills go, I can't imagine it being a huge problem and if a bird is dumb enough to fly into a big spinning blade well that elimates a stupid bird, I'm sure some are going, all my he is evil. A big question is will construction of windmills lower electric bills? I'm sure they can help alittle but they are not a quick help as I do know generally they do a wind survey of the area 1-2 years before they determine if it is a suitable building site and then you have the removal of trees, roads to build, windmill parts to be shipped in an erected, and electric lines buried and then the wind has to blow. Also where I live they are now talking of doing as huge coal operation, with deep mines and also a possible river daming for hydro, of all the ways deep mining will have the least above ground noticable impact as a lake while pretty will cause alot of distruption to alot of lives due to possible town fooding. It will be interewsting to see how far them plans make it. So they've so far turned down windmills here and are in talks of deep mines and hydro. Got solar?

Delmarva Power has agreed to purchase up to 200 megawatts of power from an offshore wind farm.

http://www.delmarva.com/welcome/news/releases/archives/2008/article.aspx?cid=995

The offshore wind farm is only in the planning stage now. The cost of constructing it has to be significantly higher than the cost of a land based wind farm. There would also be additional maintenance costs as sea water and salt air are very corrosive. I don't see how an offshore wind farm could compete with a land based wind farm when it comes to the cost of purchasing electricity. The advantage of an offshore wind farm is that there is more wind there. My thinking is that the offshore wind farm will never get off the ground, or should I say, the ocean floor.

Darren: For now windmills are better than nothing. As long as you can have a wind-farm that is not in the way of migratory birds, and not in the middle of shipping lanes, they should be tried. I don't think a cargo ship would hit a wind-farm or drilling rig if you have sufficient
warning lights. Patrick Henry(sounds like a concerned environmentalist --NOT)will stall until the last bit of oil can be consumed first. That is his only only reason for consistent, and blatant disinformation. Darren has the right idea but I would like to get some helium three myself.
Patrick, are you going to the moon this week. I hear there is a new reliable source there waiting for you. Something about Eskimo Pies? or cosmic door knobs.
KIPP

The problem with wind farms is that they are unsightly to many people and they can kill birds.

REPLY: Like I have been saying. There is no satisfying these people. That is until the USA is brought down on the wealth scale to level the glo-BULL playing field. Can't do the wind thing. We may upset PETA (People Eating Tastey Animals) and their efforts to save the birds. And heaven forbid if these wind mills are built near the Kennedy Compound on Martha's Vinyard. Just too unsightly for our elitest friends. GASP!!!

The problem with wind